M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On

@Mod_Councillor

You clearly don't know what makes a good map, because you have some kind of elitist bias that prevents you from learning anything from maps that have become wildly popular.

It is blatant unveiled narcissism that allows you to claim that maps that have been enjoyed by thousands, a map which currently occupies the #2 and #4 slots on the "most played" page, is a bad map.

If this belief happens to be held by a large number of ladder players, that doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

I kind of figured this would be an issue. No objective criteria can ever be instituted because any such criteria would have to accept the obvious truth that popular maps... maps that thousands enjoy playing, maps that people pass over carefully crafted very pretty 1v1 style supposedly "good" maps in order to play... are good maps...

This absurd group think mindset runs so deeply that even the most played maps of all time, hell - particularly the most played maps of all time - are somehow considered bad.

At the end of the day, you have this notion that your opinion is superior to that of others, that no amount of "votes" by players means anything at all. You are the one that determines map quality, not the playerbase.

And that is both laughable and sad.

Any map which no one plays unless they're forced to play it by a matchmaking system is a failed map. If you think otherwise its because you are using a broken system for determining map value. Sitting around with a bunch of buddies and picking out maps might be fun for you, but good luck getting people to give a shit about your opinion and play those maps willingly.

If the map making community spent more time learning why some maps are so heavily selected by the playerbase, and applying those lessons to their maps rather than bitching about how those maps aren't any good, maybe people would rotate off of some of these "bad" maps once in a while.

Good luck finding anyone regulating anything map related on FAF that agrees.

You don’t base the quality of cinema, food, or art based on what some random dude that walks in thinks unless you’re a corporation attempting to optimize a cost-efficient yet satisfactory solution to as wide of a range as possible. Unfortunately, such views tend to create what are considered bad products by anyone focused on anything that isn’t marginal costs.

People stick to bad maps because of a fundamentally flawed global rating environment. Not because of a genetic flaw in FAF players that requires them to play bad maps.

@Mod_Councillor said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

People stick to bad maps because of a fundamentally flawed global rating environment. Not because of a genetic flaw in FAF players that requires them to play bad maps.

Okay, fair enough. Perhaps I misjudged you. I give you the benefit of the doubt.

What is this flaw, and how does it force people to play "bad maps"?

Bad map is hosted by players uncomfortable with faf, want to learn the game by making it as uninteractive as possible to learn the mechanics of eco ie “playing against yourself.”

These bad players progress into competitive players, however these “bad players” have now risen to 1000 rating or an equivalent. Like basically all competitive players with no reputation for competency, they rely on their rating for both proof of their ability as well as self assurance that they are any good/made any improvement.

So tell me why a 1000 rated astro or dual gap player will want to play a 1k+ 2v2. Hell, why would he want to play a wonder game. Not only does he get positive reinforcement to continue to play bad maps to continue the feedback cycle of gaining rating, but he will also get negative reinforcement by joining any other type of game and getting trashed both in game and in chat by everyone.

Then as his rating goes up, it gets harder and harder to transition between “good” and “bad“ games, and he might even build up a reputation as garbage at anything other than a single map which then can add another difficulty to shake off.

@Mod_Councillor

You already read my other post, but for the sake of anyone that comes through this thread I'll say this.

At a very low level, team maps are mostly about providing safety. Players want a safe map.

As you get into higher and higher ranked games, it becomes more than that. Players want a "good game". They want a game between 20 and 45 minutes long. They don't want to sit in lobby for 30-45 minutes waiting for a match only to have it either end, or become overly one sided before the first 10 minutes is up.

Good team maps provide this. They ensure that the game doesn't immediately end. They are relatively forgiving of fuck ups like commander over-extension. They don't provide lots of contestable expansions that advertise that your team is behind.

If I designed a map for high rated players, or just tried to host one, I imagine it wouldn't fill. There aren't enough top 100 ladder players to justify many maps that cater to that crowd. Maybe a group of 8 2000 ranked ladder players could have close spawn positions, complex opening strategies, wide open spaces and not see a com death in the first 20 minutes... I have never seen such a thing so I'm skeptical that its the case, but I wouldn't be blown away surprised if its the case either.

But there just isn't a large enough pool of that kind of player for anyone to bother building maps around that.

So you target guys 1000-1800 on the upper range for team maps, because that's your player-base. That's the range where the maps will actually fill if the map is decent. If you target above that good luck getting a game.

Don't ignore the impact of the lobby simulator on map design.

So tell me why a 1000 rated astro or dual gap player will want to play a 1k+ 2v2.

Uh... they do?

Hell, why would he want to play a wonder game.

Wonder is a popular choke-point map, I consider it to be in the class of maps that I'm talking about here. Its a team map, pretty easy to tell which mexes are yours, opening isn't overly complicated. There are central contested mexes, but they're so contested that taking them means little and isn't game determining. Players generally make it to the middle game.

If they didn't, no one would play it.

@Mod_Councillor said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

Bad map is hosted by players uncomfortable with faf, want to learn the game by making it as uninteractive as possible to learn the mechanics of eco ie “playing against yourself.”

These bad players progress into competitive players, however these “bad players” have now risen to 1000 rating or an equivalent. Like basically all competitive players with no reputation for competency, they rely on their rating for both proof of their ability as well as self assurance that they are any good/made any improvement.

So tell me why a 1000 rated astro or dual gap player will want to play a 1k+ 2v2. Hell, why would he want to play a wonder game. Not only does he get positive reinforcement to continue to play bad maps to continue the feedback cycle of gaining rating, but he will also get negative reinforcement by joining any other type of game and getting trashed both in game and in chat by everyone.

Then as his rating goes up, it gets harder and harder to transition between “good” and “bad“ games, and he might even build up a reputation as garbage at anything other than a single map which then can add another difficulty to shake off.

so true how many times you had this argument now? 999999999 times the charm

Popular does not equal good, Moses. Sorry.

@moses_the_red said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

are more difficult to make from a map design perspective

This implies that teamgame maps have the same level of depth per slot as a typical ladder map, which is blatantly false. Teamgame map layouts tend to only have one linear path from base to base with no alternate routes, alternate halfmaps or "map splits", no raiding locations, barely any contestable areas including plateaus or islands, so on and so forth. Many teamgame maps are just a base, mexes that are not the core mass, flat nothingness, and then the enemy base. This includes the maps you make.

I don't think adding another section to be filled with the exact same maps on the vault tab should be added, no matter how much hope you have of the map you made and then constantly host appearing there. It doesn't solve any issue FAF has, and doesnt give anything new either.

@Morax said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

WE ARE MOVING TO A WHITELIST VAULT SYSTEM

What this means:

People can still upload to the vault, but there will be no "showroom" when users go to the vault section in the client.

If anyone has any strong feelings about this, please state so, and present some damn good evidence if you think what I stated here is not the case.

Morax, there are merits to making the whitelist "showroom" that you describe, and I think making an easily accessible and easily discoverable list of good new maps like that could help resolve many of the issues you mentioned in your post.
However, there should still be some easy enough way to find all recently made maps in one location for those who want to be able to view them and potentially play on some of them.

I read the totality of this forum (as well as many previous discussions on mapping, new player experience, vault regulation, etc), and there are very clearly strong differences of preference among different parts of the FAF community.
As much as you, FTX, and others, may want to disregard thousands upon thousands of Gap players, Astro players, etc, they collectively make up massive parts of this community (if not the majority!). And while the logic that FTX gives for the 99999999th time does explain some of those players, no matter how you spin it, there are still very large quantities of players who prefer mapping styles that will never be on your "whitelist". Those players should be able to view a list of all recently made maps somewhere.

One way to do this would be to make your regulated whitelist vault showroom, and have it featured near the top of the page, and put the (unregulated or less regulated) list of all recently made maps somewhere near the bottom of the page, with small letters and a note on how the maps may be bad (if you like : P).

Using this system will still make it easy for new players to find "good new maps" by your standards, while also allowing those with differing/contrasting map preferences to find the new maps they like.
And you won't need to be a "vault policeman" with this system either, as you can just give this list of maps as much or as little attention as you would give them anyway (regardless of if they were in a list). And if you want, you could also place a note by the unregulated/less-regulated list of recently made maps that says the maps in this list are not regulated for quality and [insert derogatory statement here].

This system accomplishes your stated goals, and it doesn't take something useful away from those with different map preferences. It should consequently be more popular and more well-received by the community at large. So, I request/suggest this system be implemented instead.

If possible I'd like to make a suggestion, instead of nuking the map vault why not use a merit based tagging system?
Instead of a simple vote which people pretty much never use (myself included) either make a prompt that appears somewhere prominent (in the corner tends to get ignored because its pretty small.) From there you have a list of tags which work like descriptors that are found on maps like reclaim heavy, dynamic, astrogap, expansion heavy, etc etc. Then after someone plays a match they have a prompt to vote on it and pick a few descriptors for it which is then displayed on the vault listing. It would make finding map types way easier.

I dont know how easy it is to do but what little programming I know it doesn't sound impossible.

i feel like this is over-engineering for engineering sake, I agree with both Vinyl117 and Emperor_Penguin, improving the current vault should be the priority, vinyl117 makes an interesting point having tagline descriptors makes it so people can if they want look for maps that have been tagged as expansion heavy or reclaim heavy and the like. adding an extra layer to the current system aka improving it. i see this as way better than what's being suggested by morax as I currently understand it.

having a vault that is so easy to upload to is a privilege, one that i feel is being abused by poor quality maps, no one looks in the vault coz its all just crap, I hope this change will bring us a vault full with a variety of quality maps, and maybe break the astro/gap cycle

I and many others do look in the vault at both the recently made maps list and some of the other lists quite frequently, MadMax. It is useful.

I would like to share this message from Morax from the previous election:

Keep your campaign promises; make two vaults (or at least two easily accessible vault lists); "one open to all, one to cherished works - simple." - Morax
Also, make it so "community votes would take place for new content so there's no "illuminati" feeling, allowing for all to help build what content is presented." - Morax

I hope the fact that I'm literally quoting you to follow through on your own proposals really sinks in... @Morax

this is basically that, just the crap vault won't be shown whats the point ?? over here we have store A that sells average quality food, then over here we have store B it sells week old leftovers, which store are you going to ?

My campaign promise couldn't be met with regards to the vault because too many people abuse the rules.

No one wants to see maps that have no textures and 5 minutes of thought.

You guys are overthinking how many maps will "disappear from the vault."

I am NOT nuking the map vault, I am simply disallowing showing maps that are "learning process."

Also, please stop writing giant reports and keep your concerns concise? You guys run on and on and lose focus in your replies.

@Emperor_Penguin said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

I and many others do look in the vault at both the recently made maps list and some of the other lists quite frequently, MadMax. It is useful.

Can you have these "many others" post here and express their concerns, an alternate idea?

You didn't do a good job showing this when we vault banned you, so if you found evidence with a substantial amount of supporters, please provide that here.

I look at recently posted to see if there's anything interesting. The fact that the only criteria I can search by are meta metrics (Name, creator name, number of games etc) and almost useless mesa knowledge (number of players and Size withstanding). Rather than anything about the map itself doesn't help me to find maps that I would find enjoyable, a lack of measured comparison makes finding maps that would otherwise be similar or enjoyable very difficult and throwing a blanket over it and pretending its not there doesn't help.

Curtailing the ability to upload doesn't either as most people are not going to go through the work of filling out an application for a game they play in their free time. Especially if they have to wait a day or two to be approved or the reviewer denies their map for personal taste reasons (people will inevitably be subjective afterall). It may instead be better to make the application opt in to gain a mapper/modder tag that is attached to any maps you make. (This shows that you have consistently made quality maps)

You can still upload a map under my plan...

@Morax said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

My campaign promise couldn't be met with regards to the vault because too many people abuse the rules.

That's just not true. You could absolutely just have 2 vaults or 2 lists. If too many people abuse the rules, then have 1 vault/list be either less regulated or unregulated.

You guys are overthinking how many maps will "disappear from the vault."

I am NOT nuking the map vault, I am simply disallowing showing maps that are "learning process."

Based on everything you've said in the literally thousands of your messages that I've read from recent years, I believe I have a pretty good idea of your intentions, and I believe you plan to exclude a very large portion of newly created maps from your whitelist.
Saying that you are "simply disallowing showing maps that are 'learning process.'" doesn't change this, as you consider a huge quantity of people (maybe even the majority) who have ever made a map for FA/FAF to still be in the "learning process" by your standards.

@Morax said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

Can you have these "many others" post here and express their concerns, an alternate idea?

Most people still refuse to use the forums. If you want to do a balanced in-client pop-up poll for every FAF player that's online, I believe that got a decent amount of responses that were more representative of the community when it was done previously.
But really, if you want proof that many people do look at the recently made maps list, just look at the number of games that are hosted by people on maps that they have never played that they have downloaded from the vault. Heck, I've heard that like half of the games played on FAF are singleplayer anyway, often played by people who basically never play multiplayer. I've looked extensively over a decent number of new maps' game history over the past few months, and many people are obviously downloading them from the recently made maps list on the vault, and some of those new maps get hundreds of plays within their first few months.

@Morax said in M&M Map Vault Plans for Fall 2020 and On:

You can still upload a map under my plan...

Being able to upload a map to a vault where almost no one will see it because it's not easily enough accessible/discoverable is better than nothing, but it's much, much worse for getting maps out there than being able to upload it to somewhere where everyone can easily enough see it if they're looking for new maps to play.
Doing the 2 vaults or 2 lists idea would resolve this issue.